Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Huge Economist Gender Gap on Policy Issues

"Is there a "gender gap" in the views of professional economists? A new
national study (forthcoming in Contemporary Economic Policy) finds that while most economists agree on core economic
concepts, values and methods, they differ along gender lines in their
views on policy."

"The analysis, believed to be the first systematic analysis of male
and female economists' views on a wide variety of policy issues,
surveyed hundreds of members of the American Economic Association. The
research team found that despite having similar training and adherence
to core economic principles and methodology, male and female economists
hold different opinions on particular current economic issues and
specific economic policies including educational vouchers, health
insurance and policies toward labor standards."

Among the findings:

1. By 20 percentage points, women economists are more likely to disagree that either the United States or the European Union has excessive government regulations.

2. Female economists are 24 percentage points more likely to believe the size of the U.S. government is either "too small" or "much too small."

3. Women are 41 percentage points more likely than men to favor a more progressive tax structure.

4. Female economists are 32 percentage points more likely to agree with making the U.S. income distribution more equal.

5. Men support the use of vouchers in education more strongly than women.

6. Male economists were more likely to support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

7. Male economists, on average, said that opportunities are relatively
equal between the genders in the United States, while the average female
economist in the study disagrees.

8. When asked about the gender wage gap, the average male economist agrees that differences in productivity and
voluntary occupational choices lead to men earning more, while female
economists tend to disagree.

9. Compared to female economists, men exhibit greater support for reducing tariffs.

10. Men are more opposed than women to
mandating that employers provide their employees health insurance.

MP: Wow, I would not have suspected that the professional economist gender gap is that HUGE on so many issues.

Update: Don't these results support the theory that there are innate gender differences between men and women, in terms of the way they think, learn, and view the world? "Despite having similar training and adherence
to core economic principles and methodology," female and male economists come to completely different policy conclusions on many issues. Given the statistically significant gender differences in the way male and female economists think about the world, why would we ever expect perfect statistical gender parity in anything: career choices, academic choices, average hours worked, engineering degrees, economic degrees, computer science degrees, communication degrees, education degrees, STEM degrees and careers, scores on the math SAT, scores on the critical reading SAT, etc.? Exhibit A: If men and women both study microeconomics and international trade theory and men exhibit greater support for free trade and reducing tariffs, can that be explained by anything other than significant gender differences in thinking, logic and reasoning?

Susan Dudley is also no dunderhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Dudley. She's not alone, even if she is in the minority among academics and in an even smaller minority among women academics.

Yet, I'm completely unsurprised by the gap.

Although, blacks overwhelmingly vote for the fascist democrats and all of the social engineering they favour and I wonder if anyone would openly regret allowing them to vote. It's not as if Yglesias, Krugman, Blinder, Bernanke, Morici, etc. do men proud.

Ann Coulter had it right. Country went to hell when women got the right to vote.

You would be surprised how many people are coming to this logical conclusion.

People assume that what they see during their own lifetimes is a permanent status quo.

In reality, only 5-6 countries are 90+ years into female suffrage, and another 10 countries are 60-90 years into it. That is still a very brief track record upon which to say this is normal.

Also, excessive regulation among formerly free-market countries, as well as absurd ways in which the government transfers wealth from men to women, are all tightly correlated to the duration of female voting in that country.

1) 41% of births being to single mothers.2) 40% divorce rate.3) 20% male suicide rate among men being divorced.4) 4x the prison population in 2012 vs. 1980.5) US National Debt rising to 100% of GDP (SS and Medicare are 70-80% consumed by women, even though 70-80% of payments into the system are by men).

I don't agree with the conclusion of the writer that the gender differences are innate. Women may study the same brand of economics as men, but their life experiences are those of women - who are trained from a very early age for a life of caring for others, and in many cases dependence either on men or, increasingly, on the state. It is thus hardly surprising that women, who are far more likely to be dependent on state provision at some time in their lives, are generally more in favour of state support.

The writer totally ignores cultural influences in the early years and in education. Ceteris is most definitely not paribus in this case.

Oh, and I've seldom seen such a collection of unregenerate cavemen as there is on this thread. Dinosaur brains, to a man. Just to pick up a couple of your idiocies:

The biggest consumers of social benefits are indeed women. The British politician David Willetts observed that the state has gradually (and messily) replaced men as primary provider for women whose responsibility for children and, increasingly, dependent elders precludes them from full-time work. If you men don't want a big state, you should step up and support the children you father, not walk away from them leaving women to be both primary carers and primary providers.

To the person who observed that more women than men benefit from Medicare - really you are dim. Of course they do. They live longer.

The same person also thinks that women having the vote is the cause of divorce and single parenthood. What utter tosh. It takes two to make a baby and it takes two to break up a relationship.

Makes sense from an evolutionary psychology perspective. Men are more geared towards risk, males competing for females, the winners getting a lot more than the losers, while women had to play it more safe historically. Essentially all the above issues break down along a "male" individualistic, risk-oriented perspective versus a "female" view more geared towards making sure everyone does well and depending on more cooperation with your "tribe" to do so. That's why the Democratic candidate for President has had a solid 8-9% lead among women since Carter in '76, when he surprisingly got equal support from men and women. Obviously, men counter-balance that with greater Republican support, creating the old precis of the Republicans as the party of Dad and the Democrats as the party of Mom. That said, this is only a broad tendency, almost 40% of women still vote Republican generally.

I think a bigger problem is how "professionals" have been increasingly tending to vote Democrat over the years, as detailed in this nice write-up of some recent voting trends. I think it's because these salary-earners are a specialized cog in a machine and are highly shielded from the market itself by the company they work for, and so tend to imbibe the lefty propaganda against markets more readily. Well, one of the great trends of the internet age is the destruction of the large corporation: witness all the large music and newspaper companies now dying off. All those newspaper salarymen will be replaced by a sea of independent bloggers online, who are forced to deal with the market by constantly being exposed to it. Therefore, I predict that their current aversion to politicans who favor markets will greatly change in the coming decade or two, but that may not come soon enough for the Republicans in the next couple elections.

There are very clearly gender differences, yes. But these posts inevitably bring out of the woodwork every moron (usually male on this blog) with a grasp on statistics so tenuous as to prevent him from differentiating a statistical difference and how EVERY SINGLE man and woman thinks. They would inevitably conclude that I am a man and that Robert Reich is a woman. And, of course, since the minority of women economists agree with the Krugmans and DeLongs, et al, half the population must be denied participation in the corrupt political circus.

Over the past 40 years I've worked alongside hundreds of women who, though single parents, were not "precluded" from full time work. A huge child-care industry has emerged since the 1970s exactly so that women are not so "precluded".

If women - parents or not - are living in poverty today it is because they made the conscious choice to not learn a trade by which they could provide for themselves. It has nothing to do with men. It has everything to do with the choices of women.

francescoppola: if you men do not want a big state, you should step up and support the children you father, not walk away from them leaving women to be both primary careers and primary providers."

Well, frances, I haven't walked away from any children I fathered. I also do not want a big state. I'm sure you have advice for a unenlightened caveman such as me.

Here's some advice for "you women": if you do not want to assume the risk of single parenthood in poverty, don't get pregnant unless you are sure you can support the child all by yourself.

Don't be laying this garbage on men, frances. "You women" are perfectly capable of controlling your own bodies. "You women" are perfectly capable of assessing whether your sexual partner will be a reliable life partner. "You women" are perfectly capable of supporting the children you are left with - just as my brother raised the two daughters he was left with.

You know I do not support a big state nor do I think that a safety net is something a government should provide.

However, I think you've allowed your emotions to run away with you. Did your brother raise his two daughters alone because he was perfectly capable of looking into the crystal ball and assessing his sexual partner's reliability as a life partner? Do women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest even have a chance to assess anything other than the violence of their aggressors? Do men bear no responsibility for the children they father? Is it all up to the woman not to get pregnant, but men cannot be held responsible for where they might stick their appendage and whatever might result from it?

this is a discussion i have had a number of times with my girlfriend. she is a phd in neuroscience, so brains and brain chemistry are her precise forte.

according to her, not only are there demonstrable physical differences between male and female brains, but also in the hormones that drive behavior.

this is not a debatable issue. this is hard science. it is not plagues by revisionist relativism like social sciences.

to believe there are no innate differences, you need to believe that physically different structures affected by vastly different chemistry somehow yield the exact same result. that's a preposterous thesis and one no scientist would accept without a mountain of evidence that simple does not exist.

men and women faced different evolutionary pressures. we'd be a failed species if we would up the same. this is a non value laden statement. men and women are different. our brains and cognition are different. this is obvious under an fmri.

of interest, many of the differences in male vs female economist opinion looks like oxytocin to me. this hormone is far more prevalent in women than men ans tend to promote emotional bonding (in vast quantities after childbirth in particular). it tends to foster trust and community. it seems reasonable to assume that the sex with more oxytocin would be more interesting in caring for others, welfare state, fairness, etc.

it's always more complex that that, but things do have effects. more testosterone makes you more aggressive. a bigger parietal cortex will give you better spacial relations and proprioception.

folks from the social sciences tend to bridle at such absolutes, but this is hard science. these are provable, testable facts.

given the wide panoply of physical, chemical, and functional differences between male and female brains, what would be amazing is is they DID work the same way.

do we learn differences too, sure, but to ague that many are not inherent to sex is to ignore entire bodies of hard science. it's like believing in phlogiston.

methinks: "Did your brother raise his two daughters alone because he was perfectly capable of looking into the crystal ball and assessing his sexual partner's reliability as a life partner?"

No. I think you miss my point. My brother - and many single parents of both sexes - learned a trade before becoming a parent. He - and they - were able to raise children while working/ They were prepared for the unfortunate circumstances which caused them to become single parents.

methinks: "Do women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest even have a chance to assess anything other than the violence of their aggressors?"

We do not need a big state to handle such situations. Women were becoming pregnant due to rape and incest long before we had a big state.

FYI, I do favor a strong police and justice system to act as a deterrent to rape and incest. My home state, Louisiana, enacted a capital punishment law for those who would rape a child under the age of 10. The Supreme Court determined that was "cruel and unusual" punishment.

methinks: "Do men bear no responsibility for the children they father?"

Certainly they do. My point was not that men are not responsible. Rather, it was that women can survive without state support even when men do not (or cannot, due to death) fulfill their responsibility.

FYI, I also favor a strong police and justice system that would force men to fulfill their responsibility. But that's not the same thing as a big state which forces other citizens to support those children.

methinks: "Is it all up to the woman not to get pregnant, but men cannot be held responsible for where they might stick their appendage and whatever might result from it?"

I think it is each person's responsibility to ensure he or she can provide for the children they create - even if the other parent does not.

The point I really want to make is that it is not my responsibility to care for your children. Frances Coppola implies that it is.

To the person who observed that more women than men benefit from Medicare - really you are dim. Of course they do. They live longer.

That is why the program should not exist. You are the dim one (which you projected outward onto another).

No program would *ever* be created if men were net recipients, and women were net payers.

It is specifically designed to transfer money from men to women. Oh, and women live longer mostly due to male healthcare being deprioritized, as well as the fact that men are the ones making sacrifices for women.

It takes two to make a baby and it takes two to break up a relationship.

Hell_is_like_Newark already corrected your stunning ignorance.

No-fault divorce means a woman can unilaterally put her selfish needs ahead of that of her own child (let alone the father of the child).

Francis Coppola is what is known as a 'pedestalizer', a third gender that is forming in the west. He is morally so empty that he thinks groveling to women will earn him social points, when in reality, he is merely advertising that he is at the very bottom of the social hierarchy.

"The same person also thinks that women having the vote is the cause of divorce and single parenthood. What utter tosh. It takes two to make a baby and it takes two to break up a relationship."

talk about utter tosh. if you decide to end a relationship, what, your partner gets a veto? it only takes one to break up a relationship.

then, we get into simple economics.

if you are unhappy in a relationship and have a child, how unhappy do you have to be to leave? the answer depends on price.

price is determined by your other options be they work, family, or social safety net.

there is a high correlation between the extent of the social safety net in a country and the incidence of single motherhood. the nordic countries are a prime example.

this is exactly what you would expect. lower price, more consumption. subsidize somehting, you get more of it. econ 101.

i would not take this so far as to blame women's suffrage (though you could plausibly build a logical chain if you believe that women are more likely to vote for social support) but even if you do so ague, this says nothing about whether it is a good or bad thing.

sure, being a single mom is hard, but so is being in a bad relationship. if someone chooses single motherhood instead of an abusive relationship, perhaps it was a good idea.

that's a complex can of worms i do not want to open as i doubt there is any way to get to a real answer.

Women have the responsibility to ensure that their child has a father. That women selfishly toss out the father (yet taking his money via the state apparatus), while entertaining new men, shows their selfishness, and the perverse incentives of current laws.

I consistently see that the father is the parent who puts the child ahead of himself, while the mother is far less capable of putting the child first.

but men cannot be held responsible for where they might stick their appendage and whatever might result from it?

Then men should get custody of the child just as often as the woman. Why is mother custody the default? Because that way, the mother can get money for herself, that's why.

women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest even have a chance to assess anything other than the violence of their aggressors?

Since one-third of all conceptions are aborted, and a lot of them in the 7th or 8th month, clearly only a tiny fraction of those are rape or incest.

In other words, 98% of abortions are *not* 'rape or incest'..

See, it doesn't take much for 'Methinks' to be exposed as a blubbering mass of feminist dogma.

i would not take this so far as to blame women's suffrage (though you could plausibly build a logical chain if you believe that women are more likely to vote for social support)....

Wasn't there a quaint little historical thingie...the whatsit?....oh yeah, I think it's called a "constitution" that was supposed to protect us from these government overreaches?

Meanwhile, I remind that it is the founding fathers (which I believe indicates maleness) who crafted the federal government in the first place. And while women got the right to vote in 1920 (I think), the government really got into the full welfare swing in the mid-30's and then only after the all male cabal in SCOTUS decided that every almost every government tyranny from 1937 forward would be totally acceptable. I would agree that women did not improve the court, but men were doing a jolly good job of screwing it up long before the first woman ever darkened its chambers.

you seem to be trying to put a large number of things into my argument that are not there.

i am fully pro women's suffrage and i agree completely that the constitution ought to apply to all races and genders.

i did not even say i bought the women's suffrage causes single motherhood thesis.

i just said that IF one believes that women are more likely to support a welfare state than men (and i have no data on to what extent this is true, though if they mirror economists, then perhaps it's possible) that one could build a logical thesis that more welfare state leads to more signle parenthood and trace it back.

this says nothing at all about whether or not his is a good thing or not.

maybe i am misreading you, but you seem to be trying to place some sort of value judgment in here that i am not making.

even if we call single motherhood bad (somehting i am not willing to do as i think individuals can make choices about their own well being) so what? lots of good things (like women's suffrage) have some bad effects. even free speech has some bad effects, but the good ones outweigh them by a wide margin.

this seems to have really struck a nerve with you. i'm not arguing against women's suffrage or even single motherhood. i'm not even sure there is a link.

but there is a link between welfare states and single parenthood. do you disagree that it's a fir question to ask if such a thing ought to be subsidized?

i suspect that you agree that subsidizing something gets you ore if it.

all i am saying is that it works with single motherhood just like anyhting else.

Do women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest even have a chance to assess anything other than the violence of their aggressors?

Did this not happen before 1935, 1964, and the welfare state? Rape and incest did not cause the welfare state, but the welfare state most assuredly caused the enormous illegitimacy rates we are currently seeing.

Rape and incest are tragic and crimes and should be treated as such. To talk about them as if they are equivalent to a woman getting pregnant when she's having consensual sex seems to me that you are the one whose emotions are running away with you.

Do men bear no responsibility for the children they father?

No, not when the father has no say over whether their children live or die. Women want total control over their body? Fine. You get to have total control over all the consequences of that total control.

Is it all up to the woman not to get pregnant

Yes, when men cannot force a woman to not get an abortion she is determined to get. If you want total control, you got it. Now take it like a big girl.

This is what equality looks like. This is what women have been clamoring for. You sowed it. Now reap it.

She is objecting against being held to the same standard of accountability that men are held to.

The current laws around single motherhood not only legalize paternity fraud, but also ensure that a woman can toss out a the father (cutting off his access to his own kids), while having his paycheck seized. Meanwhile, feminists fight hard to ensure that the mother does not have to show she spent the money on the child. It is telling that they fought so hard for keeping that opague.

Methinks likes that just the way it is, as it enables her to take money from man A, while having sex with man B, C, and D.

Nothing is more important for women than :i) Avoiding responsibility for her own choices.2) Funneling resources to her, while transferring costs onto others.

Don't think that women who happen to vote Republican are much different. They are not.

Whoa, Morganovich. You're reading far more emotion into my response than I wrote it with.

Well, I am pissed off about the tatters the constitution is in, but that's got nothing to do with you. We were meant to be prevented from using government to force fellow citizens into servitude.

That part of your comment deserved at least a little more exploration. On a thread where two otherwise perfectly normal individuals cite research by two female economists as the basis for saying that women economists are unemployable because they're all stupid and others agree that half the population should be disenfranchised because they don't agree with the majority opinion of that half (and it is, unfortunately, not just the opinion of economists but most women. I don't know why.), I predicted your comment would be taken to mean more than it did. what's next for some of the monkeys on this thread? A test of ideological purity before one can vote in a republic with democratic elections?

I know you well enough and that response to something you said was not really aimed at you.

If it can be 'her body, her choice', then it should also be 'his wallet, his choice'.

I think men should start a slogan of 'no say, no pay', as in, if he has no say in the abortion OR in the custody of his own child, he has the one-time option of severing ties and not paying 'child support'*

*Note that 'child support' is just alimony by another name, since the mother does not have to show she spent it on the child (and often does not).

did you not read the part where I said that I do not support even a basic safety net provided by the state?

Furthermore, if you read the exchange between Jet and me, you'd realize that I was responding to something Jet said and something he cleared up. I suggest you go back, read and at least attempt to understand what happened in the three or four comments between Jet and me before you go off the cliff.

You sowed it. Now reap it.

Oh good. Another one. You have no idea what my opinion on abortion is because I have never shared it on this blog. So, what exactly do you assume I sowed? I don't recall even being in this country during Roe v. Wade.

Further, this is about as idiotic as saying that you're reaping what you sowed because your grandparents were sucking air into their lungs when medicare and social security were enacted.

You haven't even the faintest clue what my opinion of family law is, but that doesn't stop you from making assumptions that show your true colors, not mine. You're an ass. You've earned that label today and you've worked hard for it.

Is that so, Ken? Do remind me because this old Russian hag is quite conflicted on that issue, particularly because if we have laws that compel men we should not absolve women. I don't remember ever having this discussion at the Cafe, but as an old hag, it might have just slipped my mind.

You know how women are. We want to stick the knife in men as much as they want to eviscerate all women.

We got into it briefly a couple years ago and you told me that you didn't consider a fetus a human being. You said you believed in abortion and it should be legal. When I said that abortion is wrong because abortion means killing a human being you told me you disagreed. I said that a fetus is a unique human being separate from the mother and not a part of her body, with which you disagreed as well.

I'm now saying that if you hold this position and to remain principled, as morgan believes you are, then you also need to hold the position that the woman is completely responsible for having a child. Believing a man has no say in whether a woman should or should not have an abortion, but is responsible for that child is pretty much a perfect example of not being principled.

Believing a man has no say in whether or not a woman has an abortion, means absolving that same man from any responsibilities for the child and it further means it is completely up to the woman to not get pregnant.

"Believing a man has no say in whether or not a woman has an abortion, means absolving that same man from any responsibilities for the child and it further means it is completely up to the woman to not get pregnant."

here, i agree with ken.

it does seem like a serious double standard to give a man no say but also make him financially liable.

if one gets the full choice then one also gets full responsibility.

my choice you pay sounds a lot like taxation without representation.

that said, i have not heard methinks say anyhting about believing that this is a fair state of the world.

ken, why is it that you ascribe this view to her? maybe i am misreading you, but it sounds to me like you feel she supports that.

this seems like a big jump from her simple question about "do men bear responsibility?"

Which leads me to conclude that Methinks is not 'principled' on matters of male reproductive rights.

Just because a woman says a few things that sound fiscally right-wing, does not mean she will jettison them in an instant when matters of childbirth, and using the state to forcibly transfer wealth from men to women (even while stripping the man of parental rights) present themselves.

Republican women are also feminists who want the government to ensure that women have more rights than men do (again, as articulated in Ken's summary).

I don't remember having this discussion with you and I can't find it at the Cafe. I tired of the abortion debate in my 30's, so I usually avoid it and I would be surprised to find that we got into such a detailed discussion, particularly since you don't have my position straight.

I do think abortions should be legal. It's none of the state's business. I do understand the fetus is a human being counterargument and I'm sympathetic to it. We just have no bright line to determine when human life as we know it begins and so I wish to leave it to individuals to decide according to what they believe is moral. I become a hell of a lot less unsure about the bright line once the fetus can survive outside the mother.

It is unreasonable to say that a fetus is separate from its mother because it cannot survive unless it is inside its mother. It must use the mother's body to grow and the mother must bear all of the physical and emotional consequences of the growth of that child. That's just fact.

We can disagree on when life begins point and that debate is unlikely to be resolved by us.

What I don't understand is how an opinion that abortions should be legal is suddenly twisted to mean that men should have no say.

What if (and this is a real case) a pregnant woman is in a car accident and so badly injured that it's the fetus or her (according to the doctors' best guess)? Her husband and father of her child is left to make the decision for a baby they both wanted. Must he be compelled by law to choose the beloved fetus over his beloved wife?

should a sickly woman who gets pregnant because no contraceptive is 100% effective be forced to risk her life even if both she and her husband decide she should abort the pregnancy because of the severe risk to her own life. Or should they just abstain from even responsible sex because they should know better?

Does a victim of rape have no choice but to bear a child conceived in a violent tragedy?

It may have escaped your notice but, this "independent being" which is so distinct from its mother resides in her uterus. Thus, a man can run from the responsibility and from even the decision to abort, but a woman can't. Should only the man have the right run away?

But if a woman has a right to abort, doesn't a man have a right to demand an abortion as well? Doesn't he also have the right to refuse the consequences of consensual intercourse? I don't see why not, thought it's always tough to sort out what was promised in private moments. sorting out these issues is why we have family law and family court and where there is plenty of room for discussion and agreement.

I've never been pregnant, let alone faced a decision about abortion. So, I have not thought through a lot of specific situations with regard to unwanted pregnancies. But, I don' think it is a reasonable position to say that men should have no say and no responsibility for the children they take part in creating - even if abortion is legal.

I will never agree that the victimization of men will elevate the position of women. Nor will I ever believe the reverse. We cannot truly move forward by pushing others down.

I can't imagine Morganovich has not been able to seduce any woman he thought was worth the effort. A man with a sharp mind is a beautiful thing.

If you have no choice but sleep with any old whore too drunk to realize what she's doing, on the other hand, I can see where you might get a rather more sordid impression of women.

I am disappointed that you only whipped out the sad "mangina" slur once this time and used it describe Frances Coppola - who is very clearly a woman. You're losing your touch. As well as, apparently, your eyesight.

It is unreasonable to say that a fetus is separate from its mother because it cannot survive unless it is inside its mother. It must use the mother's body to grow and the mother must bear all of the physical and emotional consequences of the growth of that child. That's just fact.

1) Neither side is addressing the upstream topic, which is why unplanned pregnancies happen so often..

2) Neither side ever mentions that the father should have any rights at all.

But the paper I cite does not even look at those issues. It simply takes a look at the process of abortion from a logical property rights perspective. The right wing fanatics have attacked the position just as strenuously as the left wing idiots. But I think it has some merit as it deals with the most important objections of both.

I probably don't agree with every bit of he position by Block on abortion, but I do broadly think that while the mother does have theright to evict the unborn child from her body, it doesn't automatically mean it is legitimate for her to go to such lengths as having them poisoned, butchered to pieces and vacuumed out, etc.

I probably don't agree with every bit of he position by Block on abortion, but I do broadly think that while the mother does have theright to evict the unborn child from her body, it doesn't automatically mean it is legitimate for her to go to such lengths as having them poisoned, butchered to pieces and vacuumed out, etc.

Block agrees. He argues that eviction is the right of the mother but that she must use the gentlest means possible while doing so. His analogy is your right to ask someone to leave your property. You have to ask first, and use the gentlest means possible before you resort to violence that does harm.

The right has attacked this view because it considers evictionism murder. (Block points out that it isn't for a third trimester foetus that could survive outside of the mother's womb with help and suggests that pro-life groups can ask for custody of such evictions if they wish to pay the costs of care.)

The left attacks the view because it does not care about any rights that the unborn child may have.